Marketers lose their grip on social media brand ‘control’
By Craig on Sep 10, 2010 in Marketing, Public relations, Social media, Strategic communication | View Comments
The basic rationale behind this notion is that, “outsourcing the task puts greater distance between brands and consumers, and ultimately dilutes the message.”
Well, that is total bollocks for a number of reasons:
- Organisations outsource when they don’t have the expertise or time to carry out certain functions – and social media is an excellent example of this
- Inherent in the faulty logic of the argument above is the assumption that organisations actually control their brand anyway – so old school!
- You could say the same thing about any interactive communication tactic and even some monologic communication tactics, so why pick on social media specifically?
- Agencies and other outsourced communication professionals have more pressure on them than in-house professionals to deliver to a consistently high level, often leading to better quality counsel and communication.
Where cutting edge social media expertise lies
Very few organisations have leading edge in-house social media communication professionals that are capable of putting in place best practice social media strategy or programs.
Of all the varied communication tactics available to marketing and PR professionals, my view is that social media is the one which currently benefits most from using outsourced assistance.
In essence, the strategic underpinnings of social media are not rocket science. Some of its fundamental precepts include:
- dialogue
- value adding
- thought leadership
- interactivity
- being responsive and sincere
- going easy on the hard sell.
Interesting how these precepts are all best practice public relations and not typical of marketing, isn’t it?
But it is when the metamorphosis of strategy into tactical programs occurs that a high degree of sophisticated knowledge is needed. Social media is a fast evolving and many-headed Hydra. Whether it be changes to Facebook, the emergence of new forms of social media or some becoming redundant (for certain stakeholders, anyway) it requires professionals who are all over the options to implement a program effectively.
The more fluid nature of communication consultancies (i.e. their ability to find talent and utilise it, as well as invest into emerging talent from different but related fields – e.g. IT talent morphing into social media comms experts) allows them to adapt to the changing world of social media more rapidly than organisations.
Marketers’ brand control fallacy
The emergence of social media has reinforced the reality that brands and all they imply and mean, and their resonances for all those with some ‘investment’ in the brand, are not controlled by organisations (as Edelman’s Michelle Hutton rightly points out in the article).
The brand is controlled by those who use it, who interact with it, who add to its meaning and resonances through their engagement with it.
Of course, an organisation can have a significant influence on what a brand ‘means’ for its stakeholders, but once the brand is out there in this digital, social media-obsessed world, then it is there to be toyed with, kicked around and/or idolised.
But whatever the sentiment, this non-brand-driven or centric activity is not organisation-controlled.
So this claim that the in-house ‘brand team’ should be controlling social media is founded on a specious mindset.
PR agencies: brand-stakeholder barriers?
Douglas Nicol, of The Works, says in the article that, “If you put layers between the consumer and the brand then it defeats the purpose of social media, which is to provide unfettered access between the two.”
Whilst this is a worthy notion, it ignores two factors.
Firstly, this is typical marketer-speak and thinking. It implies social media alone of all communication practices should foster ‘unfettered access’ between a brand or organisation and its stakeholders. What about events, open days and forums? What about community relations? What about a phone call?
What about the fundamental strategic notion underpinning public relations of creating mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders? If unfettered access is what stakeholders want, then effective PR professionals facilitate that occurring.
Secondly, if an agency is any good at all it will be an extension of the organisation itself. The collaboration should be seamless. And there is the additional value-add of also providing something of an arms-length perspective, enriching communication strategy, messaging and tactical outreach (paradoxical in one sense, but in practice of great utility).
Another factor, though this shouldn’t really be an issue, is that social media communication needs content. Lots of it: stories, narratives, value-adding and interesting information. Agencies excel at coming up with content and ideas. They are creative hothouses.
Should in-house be capable of this? Definitely? But the reality is that they often aren’t – probably partly because they are caught in the merry-go-round of chasing sign offs and organising implementation, which holds them back from getting the ‘space’ they need to produce content/creativity.
Pressure on PR agencies to deliver
You can duck and weave all you like on this topic, but consultants are only as good as the last piece of work they submit. Whereas employees can make any number of mistakes and put in any number of below par performances on projects and still retain their jobs. Sure, after a few not-so-impressive performance reviews some warnings may be given out and the threat of losing their job may be made.
But this doesn’t happen that often in the real world and organisations try to manage the non-performers out of the business in a ‘softer’ way, or just hold their breath and pray for divine intervention. And many, of course, actually try to improve the performance of the individual through mentoring and education. But in all likelihood if an organisation has hired a lemon the taste is never going to get sweet enough to satisfy in any great hurry.
The bottom line is that there is simply more commercial pressure on agencies to deliver best practice services than there is on in-house employees.
Using in-house PR pros
There is totally nothing wrong at all with in-house communicators looking after all aspects of marketing, business communication, public relations et al – including social media. The reality is that even the most well resourced organisations generally find gaps in their capabilities, either on an ongoing or one-off project basis.
This is where calling in the cavalry makes perfect sense. And in the case of social media, the cavalry lives large.
To what degree, if any at all, do you think external agencies should control or contribute to organisations’/brands’ social media communication? Do you have any examples you can use to illustrate your points or tell us a salacious (I mean educational/insightful) story?
PS: I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite! PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial two cents worth!
PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial two cents worth!
